Political Ad Exploiting WTC & 9-11
- Thread starter TC
- Start date
- Status
Not unless we show up at the poll that counts.
So far the Bush ads has been models of quality. The Kerry ads has been nothing but attacks on Bush, and Kerry has third party people who hate Bush so much they are spending millions on attack ads. I wonder how many people they had to talk to among the families who lost people at the World Trade Center before they were able to locate these anti-Bush people. And would it not be funny if those people who were supposed to be family members turn out to actually just be actors? Can you imagine relatives of the men who died on the USS Arizona making a big deal if President FDR made the sunken battleship a background for one of his speeches?
Kerry better watch out. Imagine what the Republicans could bring up about him in THEIR attack ads. What he did after returning from Vietnam. His book. His voting record which is public record.
Bush at least seems to have a plan on how to help the country. He talks about tax cuts to encourage small business and he has plans on dealing with al Qaeda. The most I have heard so far from the Kerry camp is talk about increasing taxes for rich Americans and a seeming desire to NOT talk about the war on terrorism. The most two Kerry people have said about the war on terrorism is that they will work with 'our European allies and the UN.' As if anything would be accomplished doing that. France probably will not do much about terrorism until France gets hit. Which could happen after the French would not allow head scarfs for Moslem girls attending school in French public schools. Of course, maybe the French will just surrender after they get hit.
Most of the liberal media supports Kerry and hates Bush. They will make a big deal of anything. Bush could take a dead breath and they would attack that.
Kerry better watch out. Imagine what the Republicans could bring up about him in THEIR attack ads. What he did after returning from Vietnam. His book. His voting record which is public record.
Bush at least seems to have a plan on how to help the country. He talks about tax cuts to encourage small business and he has plans on dealing with al Qaeda. The most I have heard so far from the Kerry camp is talk about increasing taxes for rich Americans and a seeming desire to NOT talk about the war on terrorism. The most two Kerry people have said about the war on terrorism is that they will work with 'our European allies and the UN.' As if anything would be accomplished doing that. France probably will not do much about terrorism until France gets hit. Which could happen after the French would not allow head scarfs for Moslem girls attending school in French public schools. Of course, maybe the French will just surrender after they get hit.
Most of the liberal media supports Kerry and hates Bush. They will make a big deal of anything. Bush could take a dead breath and they would attack that.
This is my take from a career firefighter.
#1: Yes...most FDNY aff's and IAFF ff's are "sick" over the advertisement. POINT: The IAFF is a Kerry backer...as are the IAFF locals. I am a card carrying union member...but despise the IAFF's sickening support for Kerry and the overly liberals.
#2: BUSH was president on 9/11/01. 9/11 was the worst incident in history. He led the country well. I hear people blame him for what happened. He had only been in office for 9 months. People need to look back to the previous 8 years to the policies and practices against terrorist cells (or lack of policies and practices).
#3: PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN 9/11. They need to play it each and every day in some way. If it takes a campaign ad to remind people...I really don't give a crap. As long as they are reminded. 99.9% of the population are back to "normal". People should always think of that day!!
#1: Yes...most FDNY aff's and IAFF ff's are "sick" over the advertisement. POINT: The IAFF is a Kerry backer...as are the IAFF locals. I am a card carrying union member...but despise the IAFF's sickening support for Kerry and the overly liberals.
#2: BUSH was president on 9/11/01. 9/11 was the worst incident in history. He led the country well. I hear people blame him for what happened. He had only been in office for 9 months. People need to look back to the previous 8 years to the policies and practices against terrorist cells (or lack of policies and practices).
#3: PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN 9/11. They need to play it each and every day in some way. If it takes a campaign ad to remind people...I really don't give a crap. As long as they are reminded. 99.9% of the population are back to "normal". People should always think of that day!!
Exactly
Sorry for interjecting, but which history do you mean? World history? Let's not even go there. American history? I could argue that the 69 Indian wars were worse, or the Civil War with it's massive casualities. Modern American history? How about WW2 internment into prison camps of American Japanese citizens who were forced to give up everything they owned without trial? McCarthyist communist witchhunts? Tearing up of the Constitution and Geneva Convention by imprisoning citizens like Padilla without a charge or a trial or that farce at Guantanamo where noone gets a trial or access to legal representation, and so on. Various acts and then cover ups by various branches of the govt. etc.
A better statement to make would be worst incident you personally experienced in your own life.
Mystic,
there've probably been no attack adds as yet as they've not had a target.
Politics gets dirty pretty quickly, doesn't it ?
We're just about to have the "community service" adds where our Federal Government spends $300m in advertisements on a "departmental" basis, to "inform the community" on services available to them.
They don't count as political adds, as they are information only.
Then we get the party paid advertisements, coming out of their election funds.
Technarch,
Thank you for your opinion on our country, and how we feel about 9/11. The Only true part of your post was, the first word. You are SORRY.
Thank you for your opinion on our country, and how we feel about 9/11. The Only true part of your post was, the first word. You are SORRY.
(Delete - errant post...)
[ March 06, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
[ March 06, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
LAST_Z: "I'm not saying Bush isn't a crook..."
Well, most of us always thought "Bought-and-paid-for by the Energy Industry" was the desription of choice, but I guess "I'm not saying Bush isn't a crook" will suffice. Glad to see conservatives are finally coming around regarding Bush! (Although I'm concerned why they'd want to support a "crook" for president.)
I was incorrect in originally mentioning "ONE of Bush's ads": It turns out that 3 OF THE 4 new Bush ads feature images such as bodies being carried from the WTC rubble. Evidently Bush is attempting to claim "ownership" of the issue. More comments from today's paper:
"'I think one needs to be aware that firefighters and those whose families died on Sept. 11 bring a very strong emotional reaction to any use of images from that time,' said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Unversity of Pennsylvania and an authority on political advertisements."
"The ads provoked a backlash as soon as they aired. Relatives of Sept. 11 victims went on televison to critize them; the International Assn. of Fire Fighters approved a resolution asking the campaign to pull the ads."
"Lorie Van Auken, 48, of New Jersey, whose husband died in the attacks, called the ads 'inappropriate' and said they were the center of conversation among people who lost family members. 'Everybody's outraged that I've spoken to, completely outraged,' she said."
Well, most of us always thought "Bought-and-paid-for by the Energy Industry" was the desription of choice, but I guess "I'm not saying Bush isn't a crook" will suffice. Glad to see conservatives are finally coming around regarding Bush! (Although I'm concerned why they'd want to support a "crook" for president.)
I was incorrect in originally mentioning "ONE of Bush's ads": It turns out that 3 OF THE 4 new Bush ads feature images such as bodies being carried from the WTC rubble. Evidently Bush is attempting to claim "ownership" of the issue. More comments from today's paper:
"'I think one needs to be aware that firefighters and those whose families died on Sept. 11 bring a very strong emotional reaction to any use of images from that time,' said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Unversity of Pennsylvania and an authority on political advertisements."
"The ads provoked a backlash as soon as they aired. Relatives of Sept. 11 victims went on televison to critize them; the International Assn. of Fire Fighters approved a resolution asking the campaign to pull the ads."
"Lorie Van Auken, 48, of New Jersey, whose husband died in the attacks, called the ads 'inappropriate' and said they were the center of conversation among people who lost family members. 'Everybody's outraged that I've spoken to, completely outraged,' she said."
MolaKule
Staff member
I don't see anything wrong with the adds.
The IAFF union talking heads are the only one's making these statements, because they are Kerry Supporters.
The rank and file support those images because they want the American Public to be reminded that this tradgedy is part of history, and that at least one president is doing something about this terrorist tradgedy.
One thing we have to remind ourselves here: this is presidential campaign rhetoric, and most Unions that are speaking are going to be leftist.
FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, and other's used war scenes and slogans of the era to promote their campaigns. Now Bush is doing the same thing but he gets criticized? Kerry is doing the same with scenes of him walking around the jungle's of Vietnam, and nothing at all is said about using HIS wartime footage for campaign purposes???
How uninformed or blind does one have to be to NOT see the hypocricy here?
[ March 06, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
The IAFF union talking heads are the only one's making these statements, because they are Kerry Supporters.
One thing we have to remind ourselves here: this is presidential campaign rhetoric, and most Unions that are speaking are going to be leftist.
FDR, Eisenhower, Truman, and other's used war scenes and slogans of the era to promote their campaigns. Now Bush is doing the same thing but he gets criticized? Kerry is doing the same with scenes of him walking around the jungle's of Vietnam, and nothing at all is said about using HIS wartime footage for campaign purposes???
How uninformed or blind does one have to be to NOT see the hypocricy here?
[ March 06, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
The public has said that they don't want negative ad campaigning. When the President has an ad that does not attack anyone but our enemies, he's still a villain.
I wouldn't waste my breath arguing anymore.
I wouldn't waste my breath arguing anymore.
I've always been highly impressed with those TV judges (retired municipal judges) on The People's Court and similar shows in how they can take a boatload of testimony, documents, etc. and quickly distill it down to an essential question or two. Their clearness of thought, with so much noise being directed at them, blows away most folks' ability to analyze such issues.
With a nod to those judges, I've gotta ask a fundamental question: If using images of WTC bodies was GUARANTEED to offend many of the victims' families, couldn't Bush have simply opted NOT to use them in his ads? Was this somehow NOT an option, and the resulting fury somehow UNAVOIDABLE? The answer is clear to everyone but the White House.
"When in doubt, keep your hand out of the cookie jar."
With a nod to those judges, I've gotta ask a fundamental question: If using images of WTC bodies was GUARANTEED to offend many of the victims' families, couldn't Bush have simply opted NOT to use them in his ads? Was this somehow NOT an option, and the resulting fury somehow UNAVOIDABLE? The answer is clear to everyone but the White House.
"When in doubt, keep your hand out of the cookie jar."
The only fault I see with the images of 9-11 is that there haven't been nearly enough of them to keep the American people focused on the what's really important. While I don't agree with how everything was handled post 9-11, I'll be forever thankful that we had a man in the Oval Office who was willing to do what he felt was best for this country, and **** the political heat. With the previous occupant of the White House, NOTHING was done without first putting a finger to the political wind. Potty breaks were calculated, polled, and scheduled to maximize political gain.
Mark
[ March 06, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: ShootingStar ]
Mark
[ March 06, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: ShootingStar ]
"I've gotta ask a fundamental question: If using images of WTC bodies was GUARANTEED to offend many of the victims' families, couldn't Bush have simply opted NOT to use them in his ads? "
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't know TC, what % constitutes many?
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't know TC, what % constitutes many?
All the liberals and the media are screaming about how appalling it is to see the covered body of a fallen victim of 9-11 being shown in an ad for President Bush. Where was this outrage when we watched day after day after day on all the networks while each and every body was ceremoniously carried from the site of the twin towers?
Mark
Mark
since everyone thinks these commercials are so great, i propose a new ad that shows the flag covered coffins from iraq being unloaded from a plane. bush can walk around them and pat them gratefully.
i mean **** , if you'll use flag covered corpses as political props, you might as well use people whose death you're directly responsible for.
i mean **** , if you'll use flag covered corpses as political props, you might as well use people whose death you're directly responsible for.
Well said, Tweeker! Very good question...I wonder why Bush hasn't shown those coffins in his ads? I mean, he's the Commander in Chief, right?
"I don't know TC, what % constitutes many?"
Groucho: It's tough to pin an exact percentage here. But I'd suggest a large enough percentage outraged that it's made front-page news for several days, featuring quotes by victims' families such as "ghoulish," "exploitive," and "immoral." Perhaps there's some rocket scientists working in the White House -- maybe the same folks who thought up the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco -- but I certainly haven't seen 'em. Just the bumblers, the same political geniouses that thought that "outing" a CIA operative wouldn't backfire even if the public learned of it. No such luck: Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald recently fired off three supoenas to the White House, covering everything from White House guest lists to Air Force One phone records. Clearly, Reagan didn't pass down his Teflon cape to 43.
[ March 07, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
"I don't know TC, what % constitutes many?"
Groucho: It's tough to pin an exact percentage here. But I'd suggest a large enough percentage outraged that it's made front-page news for several days, featuring quotes by victims' families such as "ghoulish," "exploitive," and "immoral." Perhaps there's some rocket scientists working in the White House -- maybe the same folks who thought up the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco -- but I certainly haven't seen 'em. Just the bumblers, the same political geniouses that thought that "outing" a CIA operative wouldn't backfire even if the public learned of it. No such luck: Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald recently fired off three supoenas to the White House, covering everything from White House guest lists to Air Force One phone records. Clearly, Reagan didn't pass down his Teflon cape to 43.
[ March 07, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
- Status
